登录以后才能看到帖子详情哦！
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？立即注册
x
The Dreaded Bundle Comes to Internet TV
可怕的捆绑包进军网络电视
BY TIM WU
作者：蒂姆.吴
FROM 2015-05-03 THE NEW YORKER
本文摘自2015年5月3日《纽约客》杂志
Dish television and Sony have introduced newways of selling Internet TV. Will they be any more appealing to customers thanexpensive cable-TV bundles?
迪视电视和索尼都介绍了销售网络电视的新途径。它们会比昂贵的有线电视包更吸引消费者吗？
When a man named Herb MacDonald pioneered thepay-one-price, all-you-can-eat buffet in Las Vegas sometime in the middle of the last century, he probablydid not realize that his restaurant pricing would become a model for so manybusinesses, particularly in the media industries. The most prominent imitators,of course, are pay-TV providers (cable, satellite, and fibre optic) who for oneprice offer subscriptions to a whole mess of channels such as Oxygen, HLN, MTV,Fox News, Bravo, MSNBC, E!, and so forth. (In 2014, the average number ofchannels subscribed to was 189.1; the average number watched was 17.5.) Thereare some who like this arrangement: more is more, and the payments are simple,if large. Others, however, find this buffet—or “bundle,” in industryjargon—annoying or unbearable. Social conservatives, for example, have longcomplained that they want more control over what comes into their homes, andthat they don’t like funding the production of fornication-driven shows like“Jersey Shore.” Others simply deem cable TV too expensive—Americanspay an average of a hundred and six dollars a month—and they blame the bundle,fairly or not.
当上世纪中期一个叫赫勃·麦克唐纳的人在拉斯维加斯开创了交一次钱管够的自助餐先河时，他可能不会意识到他的餐馆定价方案会成为这么多行业竞相模仿的典范，尤其是在媒体行业。最突出的仿效者无疑是付费电视的供应商（有线的、卫星的和光纤的），只要一次订阅付费，就可以收看所有的频道，像Oxygen、HLN、MTV、福克斯新闻、Brovo、MSNBC、E!等等。（2014年，平均订阅频道数达到了189.1；而平均收看频道数只有17.5）一些人喜欢这种安排：频道多当然更好，尽管可能付费金额较大，但也简单。而其他人，发现这种自助式——或者用行业术语来讲，“捆绑式”的模式——十分令人厌烦或者说不可忍受。比如说，社会保守派长期以来抱怨说希望对传播到家中的节目进行更多的管制，他们不想赞助那些具有色情动机的节目，如“泽西海岸”之类的节目的制作。其他人仅仅是认为有线电视太贵了——美国人每月在这上面平均花费160美元——不管是否公平，他们都怪罪于捆绑方案。
For the past decade, as people have started to watch moretelevision via Internet connection rather thancable modem, the big question hasbeen whether the Web might untie the bundle (an awkward metaphor, but the mediaworld is full of them). There have been signs suggesting that it will: Netflix, forexample, has gained more than sixty-three million subscribers, and people todaycan shun cable and still watch some television shows, such as “Mad Men,” bypaying $1.99 for an episode a day after it premières. The number of so-calledcord-cutters has been growing rapidly.
过去十年间，人们开始更多地通过网络连接而非有线调制解调器观看电视。这产生了一个大问题，那就是网络是否可能给捆绑方案“松松绑“（这是一个尴尬的比喻，但传媒界里充斥着这样的比喻）。有迹象显示这是有可能的：例如Netflix，已经获得超过六千三百万的订户。而且现在人们不用有线仍然可以观看电视节目，例如“广告狂人”，在初次播出后便每集收取1.99美元。这些被称作“松绑者“的方案数量增长十分迅速。
But those who predicted that the Internet would kill the bundle may have spoken too soon. Internet TV, infact, is now growing its own bundle—the so-called “neo-bundle.” This year, Dishtelevision and Sony have begun selling a version of Internet television thatcenters on a bundle, albeit one that is smaller and cheaper that the originaloffered by cable companies. Dish’s Sling is the most exciting and enticing: itoffers ESPN and twenty other channels for twenty dollars a month. (You add anextra fifteen dollars if you want HBO). Sony’s Vue has fifty or so channels,for fifty dollars a month, but no ESPN or HBO. Apple, meanwhile, is likely to launch its own version in the fall.
但是那些预测网络将会使捆绑方案走投无路的人话说的太早了。实际上，网络电视现在正发展出自己的捆绑模式——即所谓的“新捆绑”。今年，迪视电视和索尼已经开始销售一种版本的网络电视，这一版本集中于一个捆绑方案，不过它比起有线电视公司原有的捆绑包小且便宜。迪视的Sling方案是最令人激动也是最诱人的：一月仅需20美金即可提供ESPN以及其他20个频道。（如果你想看HBO的话再加15美金）。索尼的Vue有大约50个频道，但并不包含ESPN和HBO频道。同时，苹果公司有望在今年秋季发布它自己的版本。
In short, instead of the Internet killing thebundle, the bundle is coming to the Internet; it would not be surprising if, inthe next year or two, half a dozen more neo-bundlers join the game. This maycome as a surprise to those who expected the television of the future toresemble, say, a smartphone screen, where every channel would be roughly likean app that you subscribe to à la carte. But overestimating change in thetelevision industry is a rookie mistake.
简单说来，不是网络扼杀了捆绑模式，而是捆绑模式正在入侵网络；在未来一两年内，如果有半打甚至更多的新捆绑商进入这一领域的话，这根本不足为奇。那些期待未来电视会变得像智能手机屏幕一样的人来说也许会感到吃惊，他们希望每个频道大致像一个你订阅的APP一样可以单独点播。但若高估电视行业的变化，那就又犯了小白的错误。
Just why is theneo-bundle model on the rise in Internet TV? For one thing, content companies like ESPN don’tnecessarily want the annoyances of dealing, like Comcast or Netflix do, withdirect subscribers, who are always threatening to leave and demand thatirritant known as “customer service.” There are also some people, as we’vesaid, who really do prefer to buy by the bundle—buying kitchen knives in bigsets remains very popular. But more important is the fact that selling contentin a bundle nearly always yields more money for the seller.
只是，为何新的捆绑模式在网络电视领域不断增长呢？一方面，像ESPN这样的电视公司并非一定要像Comcast或Netflix那样，与总以停订作为要挟而要求获得烦人的 "客户服务"的直接订户交涉。还有一部分人，像我们说过的，是真的喜欢购买捆绑包——"买一大套厨房刀具"的方式仍然很流行。更重要的原因是，销售商几乎总在“捆绑销售"中赚得更多收益。
Consider an oversimplified scenario in which, ina nation of a hundred million households, half love ESPN (and will pay up toten dollars a month for it) but merely like HBO (and will pay only up to fivedollars a month), while the other half have the opposite preference. A sellerwith rights to both channels faces a dilemma. If he sells ESPN and HBOindividually for nine dollars a month, only half the nation will subscribe toeach. He’ll earn $450 million plus $450 million for a total of $900 million. Ifhe sells the channels for four dollars a month each, everyone in the countrywill buy both channels, but he’ll make even less money ($400 million plus $400million makes $800 million). The smart seller therefore bundles both showstogether at the low price of fourteen dollars a month and earns a total revenueof $1.4 billion. This example depends upon variousassumptions that might not hold true in the real world, but the general rule isthat, for sellers at least, content bundles are a winner.
设想一个超简化的方案，一个国家有上亿的住户，一半的人都钟爱ESPN（而且愿意每月为其花费多达10美元）但只喜欢HBO那么一丁点（而且每月最多只愿意花5美元），而另一半人的喜好则完全反过来。一个同时拥有两个频道销售权卖家面临着一个困境，如果他以每月9美元的价格单独出售ESPN和HBO的话，该国仅仅只有一半的观众会订阅一个频道。他将获得4.5再加上4.5亿的收益，总共是9亿美元。如果他以每月4美元的价格出售这些频道的话，这个国家里的每个人都会购买，但他赚的就更少了（4亿美元加上4亿即8亿美元）。聪明的销售商因此将这两个节目捆绑起来，以每月14美元的低价售出并能一共赚到14亿。这一例子构建于一系列在现实世界里不那么站得住脚的假设之上，但普遍的规律是，至少对于销售商来说，内容捆绑包是一个绝佳的赚钱方案。
That’s why bundles exist. The neo-bundles are acompromise: they exist to try to maintain some of that economic advantage whilealso appealing to a generation of people who, when it comes to television orfrankly any kind of entertainment, want to get what they want exactly when theywant it—the so-called “now” generation.
这就是捆绑包存在的原因。新的捆绑是一种折中。它们的存在是在尽可能保持经济效益的同时又吸引一代人，在涉及到电视——或坦白说任何一种娱乐时，这代人希望在他们想要的时候都能即时得到，这也就是所谓的“当下”一代。
Hybrid products are always risky, and there’sreason to suspect that the spring 2015 neo-bundle is an experiment that willfail. The new bundles likely don’t offer enough to convince regular pay-TVviewers to switch over (indeed they are designed not to, for a $20 version of a$100 product would rattle the industry too much). A Dish-Sling subscriber (likemyself) still needs to rely on a physical antenna for the broadcast networks(CBS, NBC, etc.) and even after that there still remains plenty of desirable programming,especially sports, that is beyond reach. Finally, the neo-bundle is facingdirect competition from“skinny-bundles” introduced by Verizon andother cable operators, which are not Internet-TV but instead slimmed downversions of the traditional two-hundred-channel offering. 混合型产品通常是具有风险的，而且我们有理由怀疑2015年春天的新捆绑方案是一个终将失败的实验。新的捆绑包可能并不能提供足够的频道，供普通的付费电视收看者随意切换。（它们确实被设计成没法总是换台的特性，一个只卖20美元的版本提供100种产品无疑会使该产业抱怨丛生）。一个迪视-Sling的订户（比如说我自己）仍然需要依靠有形的天线收看直播网络（CBS、NBC等）甚至在此之外还有各种我想要看的节目，特别是体育类的节目，但这是（Sling方案）无法满足的。最终，新的捆绑方案面临着来自Verizon和其他有线运营商推出的“精简捆绑包”方案的直接竞争，他们并非网络电视但却对传统的包含两百多个频道的版本进行了精简。
On the other hand, the neo-bundles may remain toomuch like cable television to attract the now generation, which is comprised ofcord-cutters, potential cord-cutters, and “cord-nevers” (those who have neversubscribed to pay-TV). One problem is still the user interface. The neo-bundlesstill feel like cable TV; you need to plan your watching, and they don’tgenerally provide the simple on-demand viewing that binge-viewers have grownaccustomed to. There also remains something alienating for some people abouthaving to buy any bundle: it’s still going to the grocery store to buy milk andbeing required to buy eggs and broccoli as well.
一方面，新的捆绑包可能保留了太多的类似有线电视的元素，用以吸引由松绑者、潜在的松绑者以及"从不被捆绑者"（那些从不订阅收费电视的人）构成的当下一代。用户界面仍然存在问题。新的捆绑包仍然很像有线电视；你需要对你的观看进行计划，它们通常不提供电视迷们早已习惯的便捷的点播观看。对那些必须购买任一捆绑包的人们来说，仍然存在一些不和谐因素：他们要去杂货店买牛奶，却被要求同时必须买鸡蛋和西兰花。
Apple will release its own version of theneo-bundle in the fall. Perhaps, as with iTunes, the company will once againconnect the twain cultures of Silicon Valley and Hollywood. In the meantime,the gap between the norms of the Internet and those of television, ifnarrowing, remains.
今年秋季果将推出自己的新捆绑包版本。或许，依托iTunes，苹果将再次将硅谷和好莱坞这两种对立的文化相结合。同时，网络电视和其他电视规范之间的鸿沟即使在不断缩小，也会一直存在。 翻译仅供学习交流，严禁用于商业用途 PDF文档下载： |
发表于 2015-9-22 14:46:51
收藏
支持
反对